Is Jesus birth backdated 70 years from the Temple destructio

[Solstice]

I think it is more likely that the ministry of Jesus was tied to a forty-ninth year before the destruction.

What is that based on?

In fact, I have no idea what you mean, when you employ, as a supposed English word, midrash:

It's from Hebrew... RM Price explains it in the link I posted. Here's the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
I don't want to get sidetracked, I'm focused mainly on whether the birth of Jesus is backdated from the temple destruction, using whatever texts we (well, the Church fathers) have to base it on.

Would that put the crucifixion around 21 CE? Wasn't that around the year that Eusebius said the fake Memoirs of Pilate placed it?

I'm curious about this too.


Otherwise, I was originally going to title this post something like "Why do we date the Temple destruction at 70 CE? "

I mean, we know when the temple destruction occurred relative the times of the various Roman emperors, but due to the Church we use the AD/CE system, not the AUC or "in the x year of Emperor whoever" system.

Well, how do we trace the origin of the AD/CE system? From the birth of Jesus... but how did the Church fathers know the birth of Jesus? What did the Church fathers use to reference that? The most tangible thing that they would have had is the temple destruction?

So did the Church fathers backdate the birth of Jesus 70 years from the temple destruction because of the history and gospel texts available to them... combined with the convenience that "70" works out real well with all the prophecies?



Edit: OK lets throw all these onto the pile too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Martyrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus


Edit: the 6th century monk mentioned below by Beowulf (in the book by Ratzinger) is the guy who invented the AD system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus

Edit: And the "in the x year of Emperor whoever" system is indeed the regnal system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnal_year
If one ever finds things written before the 20th century, they frequently say "in the year of our Lord 1853" which is essentially ascribing a regnal system to Jesus.

[beowulf]

This book by Pope Benedict XVI should provide a satisfactory explanation to when BC and when AD


In "Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives," the pope says the Christian calendar is actually based on a blunder by a sixth century monk, who Benedict says was several years off in his calculation of Jesus' birth date

[Peter Kirby]

There is no evidence for the backdating 70 years thing; we should remember this before we get carried away speculatively. There is no evidence that the birth of Jesus in the Gospels is even placed in 1 AD or 1 BC, if using our calendar, which is implied by the hypothesis. Instead, the placement of the birth of Jesus relative to the census and Quirinius in Luke would put the birth of Jesus after 6 AD, while the placement of the birth of Jesus relative to Herod the Great would put the birth of Jesus before 4 BC. The little data we have contradicts the hypothesis.

The Gospel (of Marcion), the Gospel of Luke, and Valentinus put the start of the ministry of Jesus, which is tied to the preaching of John the Baptist, in the 15th year of Tiberius, which may be understood as 26 AD if counting co-regnal years (or 28 AD if not). The year 26 AD is significant, not in relation to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but instead in relation to the 69 weeks of years (483 years) spoken about in the book of Daniel, which if subtracted from the given date would mean 457 BC in our system. That year is also the 7th year of Artaxerxes from Ezra 7:7-8, which is as good an explanation as any as to how the Gospel got so specific. (The authors really do seem to prefer the scriptures over eyewitness testimony, here and elsewhere, almost as if they weren't able to get access to the latter.)

[Solstice]

Thanks Peter. This made me dig more into it, and perhaps my question could be rephrased as:
"By what method did Dionysius Exiguus place the birth of Jesus?"

If we look at wikipedia, we get stuff like:
he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". How he arrived at that number is unknown but there is evidence of the system he applied.

Googling it, we get webpages like this:
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/years.php#how

How did Dionysius date Christ’s birth?
There are quite a few theories about this. And many of the theories are presented as if they were indisputable historical fact.
Here are two theories that I personally consider likely:
* According to the Gospel of Luke (3:1 & 3:23) Jesus was “about thirty years old” shortly after “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”. Tiberius became emperor in AD 14. If you combine these numbers you reach a birthyear for Jesus that is strikingly close to the beginning of our year reckoning. This may have been the basis for Dionysius’ calculations.
* Dionysius’ original task was to calculate an Easter table. In the Julian calendar, the dates for Easter repeat every 532 years. The first year in Dionysius’ Easter tables is AD 532. Is it a coincidence that the number 532 appears twice here? Or did Dionysius perhaps fix Jesus’ birthyear so that his own Easter tables would start exactly at the beginning of the second Easter cycle after Jesus’ birth?

The first theory is pretty close to what Peter is saying above. The second, if I understand it correctly, states that he chose 532 years because that's how often Easter repeats exactly and he wanted his Easter tables to match up with Jesus birth.

in relation to the 69 weeks of years (483 years) spoken about in the book of Daniel, which if subtracted from the given date would mean 457 BC in our system. That year is also the 7th year of Artaxerxes from Ezra 7:7-8, which is as good an explanation as any as to how the Gospel got so specific. (The authors really do seem to prefer the scriptures over eyewitness testimony, here and elsewhere, almost as if they weren't able to get access to the latter.)

Ok, maybe I'm getting it, Looking at this webpage of fun stuff
http://biblelight.net/dan927.htm

Near the middle, it also explains how the 15th year of Tiberius lines up with Ezra 7. So, the author of Luke had the book Ezra in front of him (her?) and wanted the ministry of Jesus to line up with scripture.

So we get: Ezra/Daniel -> Tiberius 15th -> Jesus 30th -> Dionysius Exiguus -> AD
(correct?)


Still, according to Price, the gospel(s) of Luke were written in the "second century AD" long after Josephus. I'm curious as to why the temple destruction comes in at 70 AD, ... is there something deliberate, or is it just dumb luck?

[maryhelena]

I'm curious as to why the temple destruction comes in at 70 AD, ... is there something deliberate, or is it just dumb luck?

I'm not sure about your argument here. Are you questioning the Josephan dating for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of it's temple to the Romans?

War book 6 ch. 4

8. Now although any one would justly lament the destruction of such a work as this was, since it was the most admirable of all the works that we have seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and also for the vast wealth bestowed upon it, as well as for the glorious reputation it had for its holiness; yet might such a one comfort himself with this thought, that it was fate that decreed it so to be, which is inevitable, both as to living creatures, and as to works and places also. However, one cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were now observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house was burnt formerly by the Babylonians. Now the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by king Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian, there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days.

my formatting

[Solstice]

Are you questioning the Josephan dating for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of it's temple to the Romans?

I'm not sure... It's just that it seems a little *too convenient* that the destruction of the temple happens at that magical septuagint number of 70 AD.

its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian

Which we can work out: the AD system is based on Dionysius Exiguus using Luke to determine that Jesus was 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius. From there ...based on Roman records... we can work out the time between Tiberius and Vespassian... and the temple destruction just happens to clock in at the 70th (regnal) year of our Lord JC. Dumb luck?

[maryhelena]

As far as I can discover the date for the fall of Jerusalem and it's temple is 70 c.e. The destruction happened under the rule of Vespasian - the 2nd year of Vespasian according to the Josephan writer. Vespasian minted coins, the Judaea Capta coins, in connection with this event. Wikipedia has a picture of one of these coins, dated to 71 c.e. (whether that dating is arrived at re the Josephan dating for the fall of Jerusalem or is actually on the coins, I don't know.) Vespasian ruled from 69 c.e. to 79 c.e. I think it would be highly unlikely for the Josephan writer to get this dating wrong. He was after all, supposedly involved in this war. That the date is 70 c.e. in our present calendar is simply a calendar issue not a historical issue i.e. Jerusalem fell in the second year of Vespasian - a year that in our calendar is represented as being 70 c.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seste ... C_0424.jpg

Jerusalem fell to Rome in the 2nd year of Vespasian - year X. From year X - a year of historical importance for Jewish history - anyone, NT writer or the Josephan writer, could use that year X for any prophetic or numerical significance. 40 years back, 49 years back, 70 years back etc. Prophetic 'history', to have any chance of having some meaning for some people, has to relate to some historical realities. Yes, of course, prophetic 'history, midrash and interpretations of the OT, would include additions that were for meaning not for historical accuracy. A historical story is not history.

I don't think it's worth while arguing over 70 c.e. It is what it is: A date, in our calendar, that corresponds to the 2nd year of Vespasian. From that year X - historical stories, prophetic stores, can be created. Reality is what it is - the 'dumb luck' comes into play when the historical stories, the prophetic stores, are viewed as history. In other words; argue the stories until kingdom come but let history stand it's ground.

Are you questioning the Josephan dating for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of it's temple to the Romans?

I'm not sure... It's just that it seems a little *too convenient* that the destruction of the temple happens at that magical septuagint number of 70 AD.

its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian

Which we can work out: the AD system is based on Dionysius Exiguus using Luke to determine that Jesus was 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius. From there ...based on Roman records... we can work out the time between Tiberius and Vespassian... and the temple destruction just happens to clock in at the 70th (regnal) year of our Lord JC. Dumb luck?

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, maryhelena, for taking the time to explain this as well as you do!

[spin]

Are you questioning the Josephan dating for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of it's temple to the Romans?

I'm not sure... It's just that it seems a little *too convenient* that the destruction of the temple happens at that magical septuagint number of 70 AD.

Don't you think it's a little *too convenient* that the worst attack on American soil took place exactly seventy years after the construction of the Pentagon began? Remember that the attack even included a plane crashing into the building!! Seventy years to the day!!!!

[Solstice]

the 69 weeks of years (483 years) spoken about in the book of Daniel, which if subtracted from the given date would mean 457 BC in our system. That year is also the 7th year of Artaxerxes from Ezra 7:7-8

Peter or Maryhelena (or anyone), the actual dating of the reign of Artaxerxes is not given in Scripture. What supplemental resource would the 2nd century author of Luke have used to find that? Would it have been Ptolemy's Canon of Kings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings
http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTC ... eKings.pdf
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronology/canon.html

(which sits squarely in the 2nd century AD)